Marcelo v. Velasco
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: While plaintiff Clara Marcelo was in the defendant's store making purchases, pieces of iron weighing approximately 100 pounds fell upon her, causing fractures to both her legs. She was hospitalized from November 21, 1906, until July 29, 1907, after which she was cured and able to walk, albeit with a slight limp. Procedural History: Plaintiff filed an action for damages amounting to over P20,000. The trial court rendered judgment in her favor for P2,268.24, comprising P1,813 for doctor's and hospital bills, and P555.24 for lost profits during her hospitalization. Plaintiff appealed, disputing the amount of lost profits and seeking additional damages. The Petition: The plaintiff appealed the trial court's judgment, arguing that the awarded lost profits were insufficient, and that damages should have been awarded for potential future complications, pain and suffering, and that medical expenses should have been paid directly to her.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in its computation of the plaintiff's monthly profits. Whether the trial court erred in limiting the award of lost profits to the period of hospitalization. Whether damages should be awarded for the possibility of future complications. Whether damages should be awarded for pain and suffering experienced by the plaintiff. Whether the trial court erred in ordering the payment of medical and hospital expenses directly to the hospital and doctors.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, with costs against the appellant. The Court held that damages for pain and suffering are not recoverable under the applicable Civil Code provisions, and that the award for lost profits and medical expenses was proper based on the evidence presented.
Ratio Decidendi
On the computation of lost profits: The Court found no error in the trial court's determination of the plaintiff's monthly profits at P70. While the plaintiff claimed P300 per month, the evidence presented by the defendant, particularly the fact that the plaintiff did not pay internal-revenue taxes as a merchant while her husband did, was considered material in establishing the ownership and profitability of the business. The Court noted that while non-payment of taxes is not conclusive, it is highly relevant when determining to whom a business belongs. On the period for lost profits: The Court held that the trial court did not err in limiting the award of lost profits to the period of the plaintiff's hospitalization. The plaintiff failed to present evidence that her slight lameness after leaving the hospital interfered with her business or reduced her earning capacity. Without such proof, damages for the period after her discharge could not be awarded. On potential future complications: The Court ruled that damages cannot be awarded based on a mere possibility of future complications, as stated in a doctor's certificate issued shortly after the accident. The plaintiff did not offer any proof that such complications actually arose. Therefore, damages on account of this speculative possibility were not allowed. On pain and suffering: The Court definitively held that damages for pain and suffering are not recoverable under Article 1902 of the Civil Code. Citing Manresa and Spanish jurisprudence, the Court explained that indemnity for losses and damages under Article 1106 of the Civil Code includes the actual loss suffered and the profit that could have been realized, but does not extend to pain and suffering. The phrase 'to repair the damage caused' in Article 1902 does not encompass compensation for physical pain. On the payment of medical and hospital expenses: The Court found no error in ordering the payment of medical and hospital expenses directly to St. Paul's Hospital. The evidence showed that neither the plaintiff nor her husband had agreed to pay these bills, and neither the doctors nor the hospital had made any demand for payment from them, indicating that payment was contingent on the plaintiff's voluntary action or ability to pay. Since the defendant did not appeal this portion of the judgment, the plaintiff could not claim injury from this order.
Main Doctrine
Damages for pain and suffering are not recoverable under Article 1902 of the Civil Code, as indemnity for losses and damages under Article 1106 of the Civil Code is limited to the amount of loss suffered and profit that could have been realized, excluding pain and suffering.